Cartoons upset Danish Muslims

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

I just find it hypocritical to see all these puffed-up publishers righteously championing the lofty Editorial Cartoon when the state of the artform has been in steady decline for the last 15 years due to media consolidation.
.

Coincidinkally . . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184735,00.html

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/

Cowperson

[Go4Gold]

This guy is an idiot, and the I hope that whomever is taking him to court take all of his and his family's money, all of it for generations to come. This guy just doesn't like Muslims! I wonder what faith he is!?

Coming from a Danish background myself, I didn't agree with the caricatures in the first place, not for what they represent or how they do it, but how it became. Not sure if the masses are aware, but that Danish paper that first printed them, COMMISSIONED artists to draw them. It's not like the artists themselves initiated this.

Freedom of speech, I back 1000% times over, but this was requested by the editor, and that is not acceptable. Kinda like Ezra's move.

I say take him to the cleaners!

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

This guy is an idiot, and the I hope that whomever is taking him to court take all of his and his family's money, all of it for generations to come. This guy just doesn't like Muslims! I wonder what faith he is!?

Coming from a Danish background myself, I didn't agree with the caricatures in the first place, not for what they represent or how they do it, but how it became. Not sure if the masses are aware, but that Danish paper that first printed them, COMMISSIONED artists to draw them. It's not like the artists themselves initiated this.

Freedom of speech, I back 1000% times over, but this was requested by the editor, and that is not acceptable. Kinda like Ezra's move.

I say take him to the cleaners!

Ezra Levant is Jewish. Not sure what relevance that has though.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

I say take him to the cleaners!

Do you think a lawsuit in this instance would be successful?

He can certainly establish that caricatures of Mohammed have been drawn by Muslims for centuries. He can probably establish that many Muslim publications, including some in the main library in Tehran, currently have Mohammed caricatures. He can probably establish there is nothing in the Koran that forbids or even mentions a ban on caricatures of Mohammed and he can probably establish this "ban" stuff is pretty recent and largely confined to certain sects of Islam.

While I agree Ezra Levant is a wingnut, he'd probably love to see someone try to sue him for damages or charge him with a hate crime because he's probably pretty confident of the ground he's standing on, knowing he's probably bulletproof on it.

Although maybe not bulletproof when it comes to real bullets.

Incidentally, just listening to CNN last night I think they mentioned a survey where more than 60% of Americans think the whole cartoon fiasco is a result of Muslim intolerance but more than 60% also think publishing the cartoons was an unnecessary provocation.

Cowperson

[Go4Gold]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Ezra Levant is Jewish. Not sure what relevance that has though.

Huge relevance, to bring you up to speed, there is a middle east crisis, maybe something to do with it?

And absolutely a class action suit would go through. Imagine that cartoons drawn about Judaism depicting them as terrorist or what ever and that they were in an uproar, don't tell me that the laywers would not have a field day, and then have a Muslim (Canadian) paper/magazine add fuel to the fire, just need to turn the thing around.

PS: I don't follow any religion, have nothing against any of them ( indifferent), I say live and let live.

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

Huge relevance, to bring you up to speed, there is a middle east crisis, maybe something to do with it?

And absolutely a class action suit would go through. Imagine that cartoons drawn about Judaism depicting them as terrorist or what ever and that they were in an uproar, don't tell me that the laywers would not have a field day, and then have a Muslim (Canadian) paper/magazine add fuel to the fire, just need to turn the thing around.

PS: I don't follow any religion, have nothing against any of them ( indifferent), I say live and let live.

As long as you agree with it?
nice. free speech is free speech.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

Huge relevance, to bring you up to speed, there is a middle east crisis, maybe something to do with it?

And absolutely a class action suit would go through. Imagine that cartoons drawn about Judaism depicting them as terrorist or what ever and that they were in an uproar, don't tell me that the laywers would not have a field day, and then have a Muslim (Canadian) paper/magazine add fuel to the fire, just need to turn the thing around.

PS: I don't follow any religion, have nothing against any of them ( indifferent), I say live and let live.

So I ask again what does Levant's religiion have to do with the discussion at hand? Should his actions/decision not be evaluated and judged without consideration of his faith of choice?

Again, I don't follow you.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

Imagine that cartoons drawn about Judaism depicting them as terrorist or what ever

Don't have to imagine. It happens almost daily in papers in many Middle East countries. The National Post ran a few examples in a recent edition. Of the 8 or so they ran I would say about 4 constitute "political" cartoons - showing Ariel Sharon and various parliment members doing visioucs things to Arabs - while the other half were blatently anti-semetic - depicting the traditional Jewish character (hooked nose, side-curls, etc.) doing evil things, killing babies, controling the media, having the world under their thumb.

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

that they were in an uproar, don't tell me that the laywers would not have a field day,

They probably would. And it is the Muslim Association's right to take the Western Standard to court - Bless Canada!

and then have a Muslim (Canadian) paper/magazine add fuel to the fire, just need to turn the thing around.

Just like with a small Muslim paper in Vancouver in 2004.

PS: I don't follow any religion, have nothing against any of them ( indifferent), I say live and let live.

I think Ezra has explained his position (right or wrong, weak or strong depends on your opinion) citing his CANADIAN values. In Canada we have the right to reasonable free speech and the right to sue those who we think are spreading unreasonable (hate) speech. His fight is more Western vs Radical Islamic values, not Jew vs Muslim.

As the publisher of a News magazine he has the right to report on what he thinks is news. In the same way as some America new outlets choose to run pictures of dead US soldiers and some don't. Is he being responsible? Also a matter of opinion. I for one would like to see what the excitment is all about, in the same manner that I want to see what vile images are printed in Arab newspapers. How can I fight the stereotypes if I do not know what they are?

It has been said in many place over the last while - one has the right to offend, not the right to not be offended.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

And absolutely a class action suit would go through.

Not likely.

A lawsuit claiming injury is pretty nebulous. Political satire can go a lot farther than we've seen in these caricatures. One (1) has a bomb in Mohammed's hair . . . . the rest are innocuous. Muslims are objecting to the fact he was drawn at all. Is there a court in the land which is going to set a precedent that no one in Canada can draw a portrait of Mohammed? Get serious.

Citing a hate crime is probably the way to go but then again, as I noted above, Muslims would have a hard time explaining away how it is that there are actually many Mohammed caricatures in existence from their own hand and why it is there is no mention by Mohammed or the Koran that offence should be taken.

Free comment allows that people in all walks of life and political and religious stripes are offended all the time . . . . in our society.

Again, I don't want to be seen as defending a nutbar like Levant, but . . . . . try and touch him on this one and you'll see he's got a teflon suit on today.

Imagine that cartoons drawn about Judaism depicting them as terrorist or what ever and that they were in an uproar, don't tell me that the laywers would not have a field day, and then have a Muslim (Canadian) paper/magazine add fuel to the fire, just need to turn the thing around.

Why imagine? Take your pick.

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/roligt/roligt.htm

http://www.adl.org/css/classics_intl_jew.jpg

http://www.adl.org/911/cartoon.gif

http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israel...israel-usa.gif

Cowperson

[azzarish]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So I ask again what does Levant's religiion have to do with the discussion at hand? Should his actions/decision not be evaluated and judged without consideration of his faith of choice?

Again, I don't follow you.

It does have something to do with it. Levant is Jewish and he is an editor for a magazine and in the spotlight so he immediately connects with the Jewish community. So they take more note of his actions than if he wasn't Jewish, and he leaves on impact on them. I think that's fair and in my mind makes sense. So he has a Jewish following and an affect on the Jewish thinking. So by adding fuel to fire he is inticing more displeasure or new displeasure in the minds of the Jewish people against Muslims and all this while one of the most disputed areas of conflict in the world involves the Jewish and Muslim religions. It has a lot to do with it.

[Go4Gold]

This is a hate crime being performed by Ezra, simple! If any newspaper commissioned to have Judaism depicted as terrorism, don't tell me that that would go over that well. The fact that it was ordered by the newspaper is the issue in my eyes, and not the drawings, but again, I'm not religious, IMO, and then you got Ezra printing them again, adding fuel to the fire. It's just taunting people, and he is hiding behind "freedom of speech" banner.

Here is a question, what other Canadian magazines/newspapers are running the cartoons?

[mbrown]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

This is a hate crime being performed by Ezra, simple! If any newspaper commissioned to have Judaism depicted as terrorism, don't tell me that that would go over that well. The fact that it was ordered by the newspaper is the issue in my eyes, and not the drawings, but again, I'm not religious, IMO, and then you got Ezra printing them again, adding fuel to the fire. It's just taunting people, and he is hiding behind "freedom of speech" banner.

Here is a question, what other Canadian magazines/newspapers are running the cartoons?

He's not hiding behind anything. freedom of expression is in the constitution. If you want true fredom of expression you have to take the nutbars too. Ezra may be an antagonist, but if you really think these cartoons are offensive then you have led a sheltered life. There are alot bigger nut cases out there that we are already protecting.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

This is a hate crime being performed by Ezra, simple! If any newspaper commissioned to have Judaism depicted as terrorism, don't tell me that that would go over that well. The fact that it was ordered by the newspaper is the issue in my eyes, and not the drawings, but again, I'm not religious, IMO, and then you got Ezra printing them again, adding fuel to the fire. It's just taunting people, and he is hiding behind "freedom of speech" banner.

Here is a question, what other Canadian magazines/newspapers are running the cartoons?

Cowperson provided numerous examples of political cartoons that "have Judaism depicted as terrorism". I don't recall anyone making any noise over that. Were you prattling on about "hate crimes" then? Somehow I doubt it.

What difference does it make which Canadian publications are running the cartoons? Every single one of them has the right to publish them and almost all of them have chosen not too. So what? Does that prove something? It's that whole "free speech" thing again.

[Go4Gold]

I do not find any of this offensive, and I support freedom of speech and expression 100%, so then lets have it. That means that no one can get sued for hate crimes if they publish offensive material? And have it apply right accross every platform. If that was the case no one would be able to hold up a hate crime case in court of any kind.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

I do not find any of this offensive, and I support freedom of speech and expression 100%, so then lets have it. That means that no one can get sued for hate crimes if they publish offensive material? And have it apply right accross every platform. If that was the case no one would be able to hold up a hate crime case in court of any kind.

Let me ask you this - have you read the piece in the Western Standard?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by azzarish

It does have something to do with it. Levant is Jewish and he is an editor for a magazine and in the spotlight so he immediately connects with the Jewish community. So they take more note of his actions than if he wasn't Jewish, and he leaves on impact on them. I think that's fair and in my mind makes sense. So he has a Jewish following and an affect on the Jewish thinking. So by adding fuel to fire he is inticing more displeasure or new displeasure in the minds of the Jewish people against Muslims and all this while one of the most disputed areas of conflict in the world involves the Jewish and Muslim religions. It has a lot to do with it.

SO..you are saying that if he was a Christian, or Agnostic, or an Aethiest, he wouldn't be printing the pics? It is just because he is Jewish (and all that suposedly is involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) that he is 'fanning the flames'?

Asr the editor's of the US papers that have printed the pics Jewish? How about the editors of the student paper in PEI? or the Prof. that displayed them?

Though you may think he is a nutbar, Ezra's beckground is not in Jewish Ethics, it is in Canadian Constatutional Law. He is approching this (as are many pundits) as a Western Values vs Radical Islamic values issue.
He is quite clear on that.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by azzarish

It does have something to do with it. Levant is Jewish and he is an editor for a magazine and in the spotlight so he immediately connects with the Jewish community. So they take more note of his actions than if he wasn't Jewish, and he leaves on impact on them. I think that's fair and in my mind makes sense. So he has a Jewish following and an affect on the Jewish thinking. So by adding fuel to fire he is inticing more displeasure or new displeasure in the minds of the Jewish people against Muslims and all this while one of the most disputed areas of conflict in the world involves the Jewish and Muslim religions. It has a lot to do with it.

Actually Levant is the publisher, the editor is Kevin Libin. It was his decision to run the cartoons which was then supported by Levant.

As for the rest, i still say its irrelevant. The WS is a conservative, right wing publication with clear political leanings. But its not a Jewish publication. So...again I question why we are bringing Levant's religion into the discussion. Unless the argument being made is that the only reason Levant allowed the piece to run is because he is Jewish and therefore anti-Muslim.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

I do not find any of this offensive, and I support freedom of speech and expression 100%, so then lets have it. That means that no one can get sued for hate crimes if they publish offensive material? And have it apply right accross every platform. If that was the case no one would be able to hold up a hate crime case in court of any kind.

Also no more lawsuits for slander or libel. Anyone could say or show whatever they want whenever they want, companies could be misleading about their products, people could yell fire in crowded theatres, and the list goes on...

Reasonable free speech and reasonable free expression is just that ..reasonable. It is subjective, but that is why we have independant courts to make rulings and elected politicians to set definitions and laws.

The cartoons, to my knowledge, do not call for violence against, nor the death of a particular group, minority or individual. They do not say 'kill all the...', 'beat all the....', burn the homes of the.....'. They do not say 'western world watch out for the...' . Wait....only the Radical Islamist clerics and leaders are saying that.

Earlier someone said the pics were comissioned. Did the paper call for illistrations that show Muslims in a bad light? Or did they just call for interpretations of Islam? If they did solicit the pics, then they may have an ethical issue, but that is in Denmark.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Go4Gold

I do not find any of this offensive, and I support freedom of speech and expression 100%, so then lets have it. That means that no one can get sued for hate crimes if they publish offensive material? And have it apply right accross every platform. If that was the case no one would be able to hold up a hate crime case in court of any kind.

Missing the point? Who?

Publishing offensive material does not = a hate crime.

[Shin Pad]

I'm all for freedom of the press, but, there has to be some common sense to it. Is it really worth printing something that has upset such a large group of people in the World? Just because you CAN do print something like this, doesn't mean you should. I know a lot of publications (the WS is a good example), would never have printed these, other than to make a point of the fact that freedom of the press wasn't called into question (and the fact that it has become such a hot issue).

It would be like printing graphic pictures of a horrific auto accident - it would be perfectly legal, but, most if not all publications would not print or depict such a scene. It would offend many people. So, my question is, why try and stir the pot in the Muslim world by doing this - especially with the deteriorating relations between the Middle East and the west?

Anyway, to me, this isn't an issue of freedom of the press - it's an issue of using good judgement.